Best lens for Canon 7d
 

Have recently upgraded to Canon 7D from 400D. Looking at upgrade of current Sigma 18-200mm zoom. Thinking about Canon 70-300mm L USM IS as compromise on cost and potential for sport and wildlife interests. Sigma not stabalised. Understand 70-300 does not accept extenders. Would be grateful for comments from 7D and 70-300 users.
Currently take images of landscapes (have Sigma f/3.5 wide angle), macro of plants, fungi using Canon f/1.8 prime with extension tubes, sport and rural action shots. Looking for telephoto for close up of plants (shallow depth of field), wildlife, but don't use hide or camp out to get full frame shots.
Is build quality of Canon L series preferable to Sigma 400/500mm super telephoto lenses?

hi for about the same price canons 100-400L sigma 150-500 both worth a look

Put off canon 400 l by push pull focussing.

Have tried sigma 500 on loan from friend on single occasion. Took images of full moon results good.

Ron I suggest you re-evaluate your thoughts on the 100-400L, as 'Push-Pull' enables much faster framing ideal for BIF's or shooting fast moving aircraft. It's a superb lens for wildlife.

I used the Sigma 50-500mm for several years and the 150-500 for several months on my 7D alongside my Canon 100-400L . I sold both Sigma's, as IMO they did not compare with the Canon.

Have you considered renting a lens for a few days. the 100-400L would cost £79 for a week [URL="http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-l-is-usm-11-p.asp"]http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-l-is-usm-11-p.asp[/URL]
harry

Have 7D - never used the 70-300 but between 2 of us have
Canon 100 IS, 70-200 f/2.8 IS & non-IS, 300 f/4 IS, 100-400
Sigma 150-500, 500 f/4.5

We had Canon 1.4x Extenders and got rid in favour of Kenko 1.4x. QI is as good and it fits *all* my lenses except WA. And use AF with a simple workaround

Personally, had much better shots from the 150-500 over the 100-400 (and best from the 500)

[QUOTE=Ron McGill;87233](shallow depth of field)[/QUOTE]

This suggests 70-200 f/2.8 for max flexibility (adding a 1.4x TC if required) - or something like the Sigma 500 f/4.5

[QUOTE=Ron McGill;87233]Is build quality of Canon L series preferable to Sigma 400/500mm super telephoto lenses?[/QUOTE]

The 100-400 is undoubtedly a better build quality than the Sigma 150-500 - in fact it's built like a tank! Which is presumably what tipped it to 'L' status - the Sigma has better, if noisy, OS and IMHO although best used no wider than f/8 gives better results than the Canon (although latter gives an extra stop). I actually prefer the push-pull action for fast zoom change!

Thanks for advice.

Sounds like I should try/hire 100-400 Canon push-pull and other primes before making any decisions .

Following on from earlier threads I would be interested to hear from Canon 400mm L owners on any dust ingress into lens from push/pull focus system.

Also interested from anyone who uses extension tubes on super telephoto lens. Could see me using tubes on 400mm for extending 400mm to take images of flowers and therfore decreasing depth of field to blur foreground and background. Appreciate that this means moving camera closer to subject.

I've been using the 100-400L for a few years and have not had any problem with dust.
I tried the 100-400 with a two times extender with the pins taped, but it would only work on manual focus and I wasn't to happy with the result.
As for photographing flowers you would be much better off using a proper macro lens, or a prime with tubes.

Harry

+1 on Harry's post - though I can use AF with taped 1.4x TC (I can even use AF with 2 x 1.4x on my 500!)

Has anyone got their hands on the new Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 dg is usm?

Like the concept and may be good compromise on cost vs Canon 300 f/2.8 prime (1700 as against 4000+).

From reviews may be good match for Canon 7d.

Are there any plans for Digital Camera to review this lens?